Football

Spurs were atrocious until Hull had a man unfairly sent off. Even afterwards they were poor but outnumbered Hull. Without the sending off, they would have lost.

massive sigh - thought we might sneak that last night. We really need to have more than 30% possession in a game.

@dicki - you 're welcome to him.

Agreed. We were awful.

Chelsea's first 12 games over the past 20 years.

1 Attachment

For comparison purposes, Liverpool are on 14 points. ManU on 19. Arsenal and Tottenham on 17.

So in answer to the oft asked question of where we were when we were not very good: doing rather better than you are today.

stars on the right denote what ? titles won ?

You do know that table only shows Chelsea results?
And that the title is won after 38 matches?

Have you got comparative data from the other teams?

Or for the time you were in the second division?

Still high from that FA Cup win? #lozzles

most likely scenario disgruntled spurs fans torch business that they believe is stopping club from moving forward

They better torch the training ground too then.

Staying classy

https://twitter.com/tancredipalmeri/status/537229699991494657

You do know that table only shows Chelsea results? And that the title
is won after 38 matches?

Have you got comparative data from the other teams?

Damo, dear chap. Indeed the chart is a comparison between seasons. It shows how Chelsea's current form compares with other years. Of course there are variables and one of those is that other teams are more even this year thn in the past. The difference between Liverpool and say West Ham or Leicester is not as marked as it once might have been. There is no top four split in the league nor a top seven split. The split is probably top three at best.

I also appreciate that this reflects less than one third of the season. It seeks to compare performance at this stage in the season across a number of seasons. It is a bit like a five mile split on a 25 mile time trial or perhaps more accurately a 12 k split on a 40 k time trial. It can show form. It shows how one is doing in comparison to other years. No more no less. Of course the final league table would be more reliable but we don't have it yet.

No I don't have other clubs data. My comparisons with them were comparisons on their current performance against our historical ones. On this basis, Liverpool are doing worse than we have at any time in the past 20 years and even ManU in fourth is doing worse than we have in most seasons.

And yes we have been in the second division. That was longer ago than 20 years and this data only shows 20 years. Second division data would not blend easily with this.

Clive old bean. You missed the point. You're comparing your starts to when you've won the league.
the three stars (there are three aren't there?) show that you've only won the league 3 times from 6 of these positions.
One of these was "worse" than the position you are in now (only 3 points, but the GF is worse, though, typically with Mo the GA is very good). So, 1 out of 2 times in the positions after 12 games where you've had 29 points or more you've won the league.

What would be informative is to see how this stacked up against clubs with more history in winning championships than you.

And @middleofnowhere yes were have played in the second division and we followed the team around the country in those days and discussing John Neal's death many of us have been dwelling on those days and recalling the fun that we had. Of course, Arsenal have never done the second division and so we shall never know if their support would endure the drop. Dosn't sound as though much of it will endure Wenger for much longer. I suspect that rugby beckons for most.

Also: at any point worse than you AFTER 12 games.

Clive old bean. You missed the point. You're comparing your starts to
when you've won the league. the three stars (there are three aren't
there?) show that you've only won the league 3 times from 6 of these
positions. One of these was "worse" than the position you are in now
(only 3 points, but the GF is worse, though, typically with Mo the GA
is very good). So, 1 out of 2 times in the positions after 12 games
where you've had 29 points or more you've won the league.

What would be informative is to see how this stacked up against clubs
with more history in winning championships than you.

Damo, you very dear man.

I think you have misread the table. This season, which is 2014/5 we have 32 points after 12 games which is the best that we have achieved in the past 20 years. You appear to be looking at the last Ranieri season, 2003/4 when we finished second to an unbeaten Arsenal side.

Our goals for after 12 matches is the best in the past 20 years. Our goals against is not. Indeed on only 6 occasions has it been worse in the past 20 years.

Not so "typical Mourinho"

What would be informative is to see how this stacked up against clubs with more history in winning championships than you.

In the timeframe of those stats there is only one team that has won it more. Man U. 11 times. Arsenal 3 have won it 3 times, Chelsea 3, Man City 2.

I've not got all the stats but last year Arsenal were top of the league after 12 games last year with 28 points Man City had 22 points, 12/13 Man City were top with 28 Man U had 27, 11/12 Man City had 34, 10/11 Chelsea were top with 28 Man U had 24, 09/10 Chelsea had 30, 08/09 Liverpool were top with 29 but Man U won the league, they had 21 points at this stage.

Man U have had a history of slow starts so they are usually the team that wins without being on top at this stage. They have never been this far behind in points though.

It seems like teams with more than 30 points at this stage usually win.

The point Cliveo was making about the stats is pretty clear. In the last 20 years, after 12 games Chelsea have never been as badly positioned as Liverpool are now.

It is also worth noting that the 2oo5/6 season was the one in which the points record was set.

@Airhead

All good points and all well made

What is this? Remember you are Chelsea and Chelsea is stats?

I think we can all agree that from here if Chelsea don't win the league it will be a bed wetting of tsunami proportions. City will be second, but after that it's anyone's (where anyone does not include Villa, Burnley, Leicester, QPR, Hull).